white supremacy. so there was a lot of reliance. it was it was improper reliance. it was reliance on an egregiously wrong understanding of what equal protection means. but your answer is i don t i don t understand i don t have your answer clearly. can a decision be overruled simply because it was erroneously wrong even if nothing has changed between the time of that decision and the time when the court is called upon to consider whether it should be overruled? yes or no? can you give me a yes or no answer? this court has never overruled in that decision just base oond conclusion that the decision is wrong. it has always found that they warrant overruling in that instance. and casey did that. it applied the satri desigh sis factors. if it means anything, it has to mean that kind of extensive consideration of all the same arguments for whether to retain or discard a precedent itself is an additional layer of precedent that needs to be relied on and
0 standard of self-has proved difficult to administer and that is relevant to the analysis. and i want to give you an opportunity to respond. yes, your honor. the first point i d like to make is the undue burden test is not at issue in this case. that is the test that applies to regulations, not prohibitions. and the state has conceded that this is a prohibition. that s the title of this law. an act to prohibit abortion after 15 weeks. the only thing at issue in this case is the viability line, and the viability line has been enduringly workable. the lower federal courts have applied it consistently and uniformly for 50 years, and the fifth circuit here below had no difficulty striking down this law unanimously, 3 -0. it s been an exceedingly workable standard. if i may return to your question, sir chief justice, a reasonable possibility standard would not be workable. it would ultimately boil down to an argument that states can prohibit a category of women from exercising the consti